If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Many people (myself included) view government as an entity that exists to help the people of the country and make sure those of the society are taken care of. Many of us believe that how great a country is can be measured on how well-cared for its people are. I've never been on welfare and don't intend to ever be, yet I wouldn't live in a country that doesn't have a good welfare system because that to me is a sign of a crappy country/government. To live a decent life in modern times, one needs just a few things - their health, food, shelter with running water and electricity, and a way to get around safely (transportation). Thus I support public health care, food stamps, government housing, and public transportation as options for those who want to use it - as well as private options for people who prefer that and can afford it. I have a good job and a good salary, so I don't need government help in that regard, but the fact that it exists for those around me is necessary. It's just a bit of empathy, and thus my votes are not bought any more than anyone else's vote.

The moral of the story being that sometimes, people use those programs as stepping stones to get through hard times in their lives, and go on to do much better things. Just because someone collects welfare today, doesn't mean they will in a year. I don't doubt that some people take advantage of it, but to say that doesn't help people is just dishonest.

And that's another thing. Yes, I think something like 20% of welfare recipients do take advantage of it, and I fully support finding a way to crack down on that and regulate better. But punishing those that use it honestly because of the bad apples is not okay. Though I think welfare should be minimum wage. In some states, welfare is like a $15/hr job... which doesn't make sense to me and is just dumb.

As for "he didn't have to fight Zimmerman." So what are you supposed to do when you are being stalked by a stranger who is potentially armed? This is a serious question; I keep hearing what Trayvon did wrong, but I never hear what he should have done. If he tried to run, he "looked suspicious," because "why would he run if he wasn't guilty?" If he stayed to fight, "well he started it." It seems like people will judge him harshly no matter what he does, while simultaneously absolving Zim of any (moral) guilt no matter what he could or should have done differently.

Even if he hadn't needed to fight Zimmerman, it really doesn't sound like Zimmerman had any need to kill him. Then you throw in the fact that Martin did need to defend himself, and it's just a big mess of Zimmerman-was-super-wrong.

I disagree that welfare is only about "buying votes," or that it doesn't help people. To give you just the first random example off the top of my head: I got back from my college orientation earlier this morning. During my orientation, the president of the campus spoke to us, and he told us about how he went to college several decades ago. He mentioned that he had gone through financial difficulties shortly out of high school, and that he had been on welfare and food stamps before --- his exact words were, "I was on all of that crap. There's a way out of it, though, if it's important enough to you." This was part of a motivation speech as to why getting an education and learning how to support yourself as a good thing. The moral of the story being that sometimes, people use those programs as stepping stones to get through hard times in their lives, and go on to do much better things. Just because someone collects welfare today, doesn't mean they will in a year. I don't doubt that some people take advantage of it, but to say that doesn't help people is just dishonest.

And setting aside (for the moment) the issue of what constitutes "suspicious": looking suspicious is not a crime. So even if Trayvon DID look suspicious, that's simply not grounds (legal or ethical) to stalk him and instigate armed conflict. Let's get that much cleared up: if not for stand your ground, Zim could very easily have been convicted (at LEAST of manslaughter) on this basis alone.

As for "he didn't have to fight Zimmerman." So what are you supposed to do when you are being stalked by a stranger who is potentially armed? This is a serious question; I keep hearing what Trayvon did wrong, but I never hear what he should have done. If he tried to run, he "looked suspicious," because "why would he run if he wasn't guilty?" If he stayed to fight, "well he started it." It seems like people will judge him harshly no matter what he does, while simultaneously absolving Zim of any (moral) guilt no matter what he could or should have done differently.

I don't believe I ever said all welfare is bad. Certain people need help at times and that help s/b available. I would say at a minimum, 50% of welfare is a joke. Meaning it is abused, wasted, fraudulant. It is given to people who do not or should not need it. It is generational, it is institutionalized and it is there and expanded for the sole purpose of buying votes. Don't believe me...?, tell the next presidential candidate to run on cutting welfare by 20%. Watch how his oopponent runs him over like a snail at Indy. It is so political that politicians won't cut it when we are $17,000,000,000,000 in debt. Cutting it is never even mentioned....even when we can never sustain this type of welfare status. I have said this before, if you are able bodied and able minded and have been on welfare-ANY TYPE- for more than 5 years, you are simply a fucking loser and lazy sob not deserving of the time of day. You are a societal drain and should be completely cut off from welfare. I rarely see skinny people on the public dime.

Suspicious looking is a problem. If I see a person like that..any color, looking like a gangster, I watch him. He (TM) wanted to look like a thug and it cost him. If I am being followed and I think the guy has a gun??? I get the fuck out of there. Why would you fight unless you are looking for trouble. Just based on the obvious, TM could easily outrun GZ. He decided no to run and instead, he was killed.

It is so political that politicians won't cut it when we are $17,000,000,000,000 in debt.

That's because cutting welfare by even 20% in order to reduce the deficit is like deleting text files on your 450GB hard drive in order to free up space. There are much better targets for cutting than necessary entitlement spending; that's called "austerity," and it's failed almost everywhere it's been implemented.

Suspicious looking is a problem. If I see a person like that..any color, looking like a gangster, I watch him.

Okay. So what does he have to do, in order to go from you "watching him" to you killing him? What's the fine line between watching and murdering?

Why would you fight unless you are looking for trouble.

If we were playing Zimmerman apologist bingo, I would have just won Thanks for proving my point, exactly. If you're at point-blank range and someone is pointing a gun at you, you don't have a chance to run away. There are a number of scenarios in which it's more reasonable to try and disarm your attacker than to try and flee.

And think about what you just said, also; you said, "why would you fight unless you are looking for trouble." I guess Zimmerman was looking for trouble, then, since he was the one that pulled the trigger. If Trayvon was attacking him, why didn't he run away? That's what interests me the most, and what brings the flaws in this case to light most prominently -- that people attribute the responsibility of avoiding conflict to Trayvon, the one who was stalked and assaulted, and not to Zim, the one that stalked and assaulted him. It's a double-standard, no matter how you look at it.

"I'm sorry
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."

That's because cutting welfare by even 20% in order to reduce the deficit is like deleting text files on your 450GB hard drive in order to free up space. There are much better targets for cutting than necessary entitlement spending; that's called "austerity," and it's failed almost everywhere it's been implemented.

Okay. So what does he have to do, in order to go from you "watching him" to you killing him? What's the fine line between watching and murdering?

If we were playing Zimmerman apologist bingo, I would have just won Thanks for proving my point, exactly. If you're at point-blank range and someone is pointing a gun at you, you don't have a chance to run away. There are a number of scenarios in which it's more reasonable to try and disarm your attacker than to try and flee.

And think about what you just said, also; you said, "why would you fight unless you are looking for trouble." I guess Zimmerman was looking for trouble, then, since he was the one that pulled the trigger. If Trayvon was attacking him, why didn't he run away? That's what interests me the most, and what brings the flaws in this case to light most prominently -- that people attribute the responsibility of avoiding conflict to Trayvon, the one who was stalked and assaulted, and not to Zim, the one that stalked and assaulted him. It's a double-standard, no matter how you look at it.

Do you wake up in morning and plan on just being wrong or is it inherently in your DNA? There are a million reasons we have attained this level of debt. This BS social engineering, vote buying and practice of handing out a living to people simply to lazy to make it on their own is a slap in the face of everyone making a living for these fucking pigs. Get it? It sends a message that...what the hell, I'll let the government take care of me if I am too much an idiot to make it on my own. People can get free cel phones for fuck sake. Here's a news flash...it's not the government's/socities responsibility to make you a living...ever. You don't have to spend every nickel you get. Save a bit for what's called a rainy day. But this handing out money for no other reason than people don't want to work is fucking insulting and goes against the grain of the American work ethic. But beginning to halt giving money away to people that in no way deserve it and get it simply because they have a fucking pulse or psudeo psycho disorder is certainly one way to start on the track of fiscal responsibility. It would be hundreds of billions a year. Gets my attention. Also, cutting back on special interest tax deductions for the wealthy is a good idea too.

GZ was on neighborhood watch. He was there patrolling specifically because why???? There was crime the area lately. Was he specifically targeting TM or looking for trouble? Not from what I saw/understood. He was patrolling however so decide what you will. Cops on patrol are looking for trouble all the damn time then. Was TM dressed like a thug? Yes, from what I saw. It was also my understanding that TM reached for GZ's gun while they were fighting on the ground (TM on top) and GZ's head was getting blasted. Also, GZ was I believe a mentor for minority kids.

There are a million reasons we have attained this level of debt. This BS social engineering, vote buying and practice of handing out a living to people simply to lazy to make it on their own is a slap in the face of everyone making a living for these fucking pigs. Get it? It sends a message that...what the hell, I'll let the government take care of me if I am too much an idiot to make it on my own. People can get free cel phones for fuck sake. Here's a news flash...it's not the government's/socities responsibility to make you a living...ever.

With all due respect, I don't really have time to deconstruct your personal philosophy in the interest of political argument (I'm not aware of any social program whose conditions for application literally include "you are able to work but just don't want to"). What we know is that these programs work and that they are necessary to a functional society; how a society treats its poorest citizens is a good (though not universal, definitely good) indicator of its level of economic success. And I'll just leave it at that

As for Zimmerman; nothing you said really contradicts the point I made, which was that if Trayvon was responsible for leaving the scene and avoiding conflict, then so was Zimmerman -- regardless of how Definitely Not Racist he was, or how many kids he supposedly mentored; none of that really has any bearing on the case, it's just the opposite of the character assassination that people dump on Trayvon -- whether he was busted for weed in the past or not; whether he had stolen anything in the past or not; whether Zimmerman was a "nice guy" or a massive racist fuck; neither Zim nor Trayvon could have known either of those things about each other based solely on their interactions that night. So any attempt to assassinate or promote character is little more than a half-assed post-hoc justification for murder. All that matters is why he killed him, and whether or not he was ethically justified in doing so. I don't think he was.

"I'm sorry
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."

Side note: NC State legislature is cutting welfare here. At first, I'm all "wtf?", but then someone tells me the numbers. Did you know that, until just recently, a single person on unemployment in NC could draw as much as $500 a week? They are cutting it down to $300 a week. $500 a week is more than low ranking U.S. military personnel make before taxes. It boggles the mind...

Last edited by _Lost_; 07-20-2013 at 12:40 PM.

Originally Posted by Little_Miss_1565

Or what? Or you'll leave as soon as someone returns your rudeness and delete all your posts? I'm so scared.